https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/a7b931a4a2928d5a62ed162df4bfdf03.pdf 112562273732ed7f0e762d1c7de77bc1 PDF Text Text Village of Sleepy Hollow Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting February 16, 2022 Acting Chairman Lis called the meeting to order at 7:05 pm. Present: Craig Lis, Acting Chairman Sandra Tripp Thomas Chang Gorete Crowe Margaret Rubick Also Present: Sean McCarthy, Village Architect Joshua Subin, Village Attorney Pamela Kroll, Secretary to the Zoning Board Absent: Timothy Church, Chairman Agenda: 1) Richard and Elizabeth Pacheco, 9 Hemlock Drive, Proposed fencing- Continued public hearing 2) Lighthouse Landing Communities, LLC, Edge-on-Hudson Riverfront Development, Legend Drive, Phase III, Block O/P, Proposed townhome development, Height variancePublic hearing 3) Sean and Mara Kennedy, 138 Harwood Avenue, Proposed two-story addition- Public hearing 4) Alan and Lauren Perlman, 16 Pokahoe Drive, Proposed additions and alterationsPublic hearing 5) Hudson Pines, LLC, 180 Bedford Road, Interpretation/Appeal, Proposed recreation complex- Public hearing 6) Approval of minutes - December 15, 2021, January 19, 2022 1. Richard and Elizabeth Pacheco, 9 Hemlock Drive, Proposed fencing- Continued Public hearing Chairman Lis stated that the Board has received a revised proposal from the applicant and an additional comment letter from a neighbor (See Exhibit #1). Chairman Lis invited the applicant to describe the changes to the application. Rich Pacheco is the owner of 9 Hemlock Drive. Mr. Pacheco presented a survey and an aerial view of his property to detail where the 15 foot setback is located and where he proposes to 1 (ZBA 2/16/2022) �install a 4 foot high fence. Mr. Pacheco presented photographs of the property and stated that there is existing mature shrubbery that will conceal the view of the fence along Kingsland Road. Mr. Pacheco stated that the proposed fencing will be on his property line and will be approximately 7 feet from Kingsland Road. Mr. Pacheco stated that in order to address the concerns of his neighbor, he proposes to install the fence on an angle at the corner of Kingsland Road, and add additional plantings. Mr. Pacheco stated that the reasons for the proposed 4 foot fence height are that a 3 foot fence would be custom and cost more to install and that they plan on getting a dog, and that breeders recommend installing a fence that is 4 feet high. Chairman Lis solicited comments from the Board. Sean McCarthy asked Mr. Pacheco if any of the shrubbery would need to be removed to install the proposed fencing. Mr. Pacheco stated that two fence contractors have stated that the existing shrubbery would not need to be removed in order to install the fencing. Motion was made to open the public hearing. Moved: Lis Seconded: Rubick Vote 5-0 Chairman Lis solicited comments from the public. Arthur McKinley is the owner of 18 Kingsland Road and stated that he is opposed to the height and extent of the proposed fencing. Mr. McKinley stated that the proposed application fails to meet the five point test for granting zoning variances. Mr. McKinley stated that the application does not provide measurements to show how far the proposed fencing will be from Kingsland Road and disputes that the existing vegetation would need to be removed in order to install the fencing. Chairman Lis questioned if Mr. McKinley would have the same objections to a 3 foot fence and stated that his objection seems to be for the fence regardless of the height. Mr. McKinley stated that he is opposed to fencing in general and stated that Sleepy Hollow Manor has very few fences. Mr. McKinley stated that he is opposed to granting variances and stated that if a 3 foot fence is allowed, then the Board should stick with the Code. Harry Eagan is the owner of 17 Kingsland Road and stated that the fences that exist in Sleepy Hollow Manor are installed in the back yards of properties that are not corner lots and are not seen from the street. Mr. Eagan asked Mr. Pacheco for the cost increase to install the 3 foot fencing. Mr. Pacheco stated that he received two quotes to install the 4 foot high fencing ranging between $12,000-$15,000 and that it would cost over $20,000 to install 3 foot high fencing. 2 (ZBA 2/16/2022) �Amanda Linhart is the owner of 4 Pokahoe Drive and stated that the proposed fence design is transparent and that it will not been seen along Kingsland Road behind the shrubbery. Catherine McKinley is the owner of 18 Kingsland Road and stated that the applicants’ property is not very big and that having a big dog in a fenced area is not common in the neighborhood, and it is not appropriate to leave a dog outside all day. Chairman Lis stated that it is not relevant how the neighbor utilizes the fence. Arthur McKinley requested the proposed setback from Kingsland Road and stated that there are no measurements on the plan. Mr. Pacheco stated that Kingsland Road is approximately 7 feet from his property line and that he plans on hiring a surveyor to stake his property lines before installing the fencing. Sean McCarthy stated that the survey submitted with the application indicates all of the setbacks from the house to the property line. The property line is referenced from the house to the property line, not from the street. The fencing is permitted to be installed on the property line. The distance from the front corner of the house to Kingsland Road is 24.64 feet to the property line and the distance from the rear corner of the house to Kingsland Road is 23.43 feet to the property line. Arthur McKinley asked Mr. McCarthy to explain how the 15 foot distance from the property line is relevant to installing a fence. Mr. McCarthy stated that the 15 foot setback from the property line is where the applicant is permitted to install a fence that is higher than 3 feet without requiring a variance. Motion was made to close the public hearing. Moved: Lis Seconded: Rubick Vote 5-0 Chairman Lis solicited additional comments from the Board. Thomas Chang questioned what the distance is from the property line to the 15 foot setback line. Mr. Pacheco stated that there is approximately 10 feet from the 15 foot setback to the property line. Chairman Lis stated that a fence running through the middle of the side yard would be less aesthetically pleasing than installing the fence along the property line. Chairman Lis made a motion to approve the requested variance based on the following criteria: 1. The requested variance will not create an undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood or be a detriment to the nearby properties as the additional 1 foot of 3 (ZBA 2/16/2022) �fencing will not be seen from the road behind the existing shrubbery and if the fence was installed back 15 feet, it would be less pleasing to the neighboring property owners. 2. The requested variance is not substantial as it is only 1 foot more than what is permitted as per the Zoning Code and that most of the issues expressed in opposition are for a fence in general regardless of the height. 3. The benefit sought by the applicant could be achieved by other methods. 4. The requested variance will not cause adverse effects to the environmental condition of the neighborhood. 5. Although the requested variance is a self-created hardship, the property is a corner lot and that is not self-created. Motion was made to approve the requested variance for the 4 foot high fencing with the condition that the shrubbery will remain and be maintained in perpetuity to conceal the fencing along Kingsland Road. Moved: Lis Seconded: Tripp Craig Lis, Acting Chairman- yes Sandra Tripp - yes Thomas Chang -yes Margaret Rubick - yes Gorete Crowe- yes Vote 5-0 APPROVED 2. Lighthouse Landing Communities, LLC, Edge-on-Hudson Riverfront Development, Legend Drive, Phase III, Block O/P, Proposed townhome development, Height variancePublic Hearing Chairman Lis read the public and listed the documents submitted with the application. Chairman Lis asked Sean McCarthy if all of the mailing receipts have been received. Sean McCarthy stated that all of the mailing receipts have been received. Chairman Lis invited the applicant to present the application. Anne Klein is an associate with DelBello Donnellen Weingarten Wise and Wiederkehr, LLC representing the applicant and stated that the public notice sums up the application. Ms. Klein stated similar variances have been granted for buildings within the 300-foot wide reduced height zone and that the current application meets the 5 standards of approval. Chairman Lis requested that the applicant confirm that the additional height will be setback from the edge of the buildings. 4 (ZBA 2/16/2022) �Andrew Tung is an associate of DTS Provident Design Engineering, LLP representing the applicant. Mr. Tung stated that the fourth floor will not be visible from the street. Mr. Tung presented drawings and summarized the proposed application for the requested variance. Chairman Lis asked Sean McCarthy if the Planning Board application has been approved. Sean McCarthy stated that the applicants are seeking Site Plan approval from the Planning Board and pending the decision of the Zoning Board, they will back before the Planning Board at the February 17, 2022 meeting. Chairman Lis solicited comments from the Board. Sandra Tripp asked if there were changes made since the presentation from last month. Mr. Tung stated that no changes have been made to the application since the presentation at last month’s meeting. Sean McCarthy questioned if the the applicant has determined how far the upper floor will be set back from the face of the building. Mr. Tung stated that the distance will vary depending on the homeowner’s selections but the upper floor will be set back at least 7 feet from the face of the building. Sean McCarthy questioned if there will be roof top amenity structures, pergolas, or overhangs in the setback space. Mr. Tung stated that there may be instances where a roof top structure will be constructed at the fourth level. Mr. Tung presented photographs of the building completed in Block-E where a roof top pergola was constructed and stated that the 5-7 feet setback from the face of the building was maintained. Motion was made to open the public hearing. Moved: Lis Seconded: Tripp Vote 5-0 Chairman Lis solicited comments from the public. There were no comments from the public. Motion was made to close the public hearing. Moved: Lis Seconded: Rubick Vote 5-0 Chairman Lis stated that he appreciates the detailed presentation given at the January 19, 2022 meeting stated and that the application meets the criteria to approve the requested variance. 5 (ZBA 2/16/2022) �Motion was made to approve the requested variance for increased building heights. Moved: Lis Seconded: Rubick Craig Lis, Acting Chairman- yes Sandra Tripp - yes Thomas Chang -yes Margaret Rubick - yes Gorete Crowe- yes Vote 5-0 APPROVED 3. Sean and Mara Kennedy, 138 Harwood Avenue, Proposed two-story addition- Public hearing Chairman Lis read the public notice and listed the documents submitted with the application. Chairman Lis asked Sean McCarthy if all of the mailing receipts have been received. Sean McCarthy stated that all of the mailing receipts have been received. Chairman Lis invited the applicant to present the application. Frank Tancredi is the architect representing the applicants. Mr. Tancredi stated that the application proposes to demolish the existing single-story family room addition and to construct a two-story addition and a new single story family room addition that includes the expansion of the kitchen that will allow the walls to align with the existing house. The proposed new twostory addition on the back of the house will be a guest suite on the first floor and a master bedroom on the second floor. Mr. Tancredi stated that the neighbors have submitted a letter in support of proposed addition. (See Exhibit #2) Chairman Lis asked Sean McCarthy to confirm that the requested variance is for a pre-existing condition of the property. Sean McCarthy stated that the variance required is for a pre-existing non-conforming condition of the property and that the proposed application meets the requirements for the floor area ratio and increased building coverage. Chairman Lis solicited comments from the Board. There were no comments from the Board. Motion was made to open the public hearing. Moved: Lis Seconded: Tripp Vote 5-0 Chairman Church solicited comments from the public. There were no public comments. 6 (ZBA 2/16/2022) �Motion was made to close the public hearing. Moved: Lis Seconded: Crowe Vote 5-0 Motion was made by Chairman Lis to approve the requested variances for the side yard setback based on the following criteria: 1. Granting of the variances will not cause an undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood or be a detriment to the nearby properties as the proposed addition will affect the rear of the property and the neighboring property owner has expressed their support of the application. 2. Granting of the area variances is the feasible and minimal method to achieve the benefits sought by the applicants where the conditions of the property are existing nonconforming. 3. The requested variances are not substantial due to the existing non-conformity of the side yard and the proposed application meets the requirements for floor area and building coverage. 4. The requested variances will not produce an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood. 5. The requested variances are not self-created as the side yard is existing non-conforming. A motion was made to grant the area variances for the side yard setback. Moved: Lis Seconded: Rubick Craig Lis, Acting Chairman- yes Sandra Tripp - yes Thomas Chang -yes Margaret Rubick - yes Gorete Crowe- yes Vote 5-0 APPROVED 4. Alan and Lauren Perlman, 16 Pokahoe Drive, Proposed additions and alterations- Public hearing Chairman Lis read the public notice and listed the documents submitted with the application. Chairman Lis asked Sean McCarthy if all of the mailing receipts have been received. Sean McCarthy stated that all of the mailing receipts have been received. Amanda Linhart is the architect representing the applicant. Ms. Linhart presented photographs and stated that the existing house faces West and the front of the house faces towards the river. 7 (ZBA 2/16/2022) �The portion of the application that requires a variance is the area where they are proposing to construct a covered front porch in the front yard setback. Ms. Linhart shared the construction drawings and stated that the proposed porch will be 9 feet deep and constructed with composite decking. Due to the pitch of the roof, they may need to construct the porch roof in metal instead of shingles. The porch columns will be white paint Azek material. New front stairs and railings will be constructed leading to the front porch. The front porch will be set down two steps from the front landing. Ms. Linhart submitted four written letters of support from the neighboring property owners. (See attached Exhibit #s 3-6). Chairman Lis asked Amanda Linhart to confirm that any additions in the front yard setback would require a variance because the front yard is already existing non-conforming and if the owners are trying to keep it as small as possible. Ms. Linhart stated that the existing house is 29.7 feet from the front yard setback where 30.0 feet is required by Code and that they are requesting a variance for the front yard setback to be 20.70 feet. Ms. Linhart stated that the houses along Pokahoe Drive do not align in a row where you would notice if a house is jutting out past another. Chairman Lis solicited comments from the Board. There were no questions from the Board. Motion was made to open the public hearing. Moved: Lis Seconded: Tripp Vote 5-0 Chairman Lis solicited comments from the public. There were no comments from the public. Motion was made to open the close hearing. Moved: Lis Seconded: Tripp Vote 5-0 Motion was made by Chairman Lis to approve the requested variances for the front yard setback based on the following criteria: 1. Granting of the variances will not cause an undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood or be a detriment to the nearby properties as it will be an improvement to the house and the neighboring property owners have expressed their support of the application. 2. Granting of the area variances is the feasible and minimal method to achieve the benefits sought by the applicants where the conditions of the property are existing nonconforming. 8 (ZBA 2/16/2022) �3. The requested variances are not substantial due to the existing non-conformity of the front yard and request to construct a porch that is 9 feet in depth. 4. The requested variances will not produce an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood. 5. The requested variances are self-created but it is not the only factor that the Board considers when granting a variance when the front yard is existing non-conforming. A motion was made to grant the area variances for the front yard setback. Moved: Lis Seconded: Crowe Craig Lis, Acting Chairman- yes Sandra Tripp - yes Thomas Chang -yes Margaret Rubick - yes Gorete Crowe- yes Vote 5-0 APPROVED 5. Hudson Pines, LLC, 180 Bedford Road, Intepretation/Appeal, Proposed recreation complex- Public hearing Chairman Lis read the public notice and listed the documents submitted with the application. Joshua Subin stated that he received a letter today from the applicants’ attorney that addresses issues regarding the appeal in connection to a letter that questions if a variance runs with the land or whether certain code provisions would apply. Mr. Subin stated that if he is to address the attorney’s letter, he would have to brief the Board and it would need to be done at a later date. Mr. Subin suggested that the applicant should move forward with presenting the five factors for at this meeting and depending on how the Board comes out on the vote, it may be moot for him to draft a response memo. If there are legal issues, the Board can address them at an adjourned public hearing. Kimberly Martelli is the architect representing the applicant. Ms. Martelli provided a summary of the previous variance approvals granted by the Zoning Board in 2019 and 2020 in which the existing Carriage House structure was proposed to be lifted. In between the variance approvals and the filing of the Building Permits, the structural engineer and the construction team determined that the ability to lift the Carriage House structure was hazardous to the construction entities and the sub-contractors. Revised construction drawings were filed to specify that new construction was required. The intention is to construct the structure in same location. Although the proposed structure sits within the front yard setbacks, the site is ideal in relation to the planting and level areas above it and that it will be centered between the main house and the other accessory structures on the property. They are requesting that the Board grant the same variances from the previous approvals. Ms. Martelli presented the construction drawings and 9 (ZBA 2/16/2022) �existing site photographs and described the conditions of the site and the location as they relate to the proposed structure. Chairman Lis requested that Ms. Martelli confirm that the difference from the previous application is that they were originally going to keep the Carriage House. Ms. Martelli stated that they previously proposed to lift the structure and build a foundation underneath it. The new structure is proposed to consist of identical foundations and construction. Mr. Subin stated that when a prior variance is granted, a rational explanation must be provided in order to deviate from the variance proving that the application will reach different results on the same facts. Ms. Martelli stated that the main reason for the requested variances outside of the setbacks is to keep the structure at the lowest elevation where the height of the accessory structure will have minimal visibility from the road. Chairman Lis solicited comments from the Board. Sandra Tripp requested that Ms. Martelli present the five factors for granting the variances from the original application. Ms. Martelli read the five factors as documented in the application as follows: 1. No undesirable change will be produced in the neighborhood or be a detriment to nearby communities as the proposed alterations and addition shall remain well screened from neighboring lots. It is a very large lot and the most visibility is from Bedford Road. The existing structure was non-conforming with respect to the front yard setback and height and any new construction or alterations to that footprint would require a variance. 2. The goal of achieving clearance structure head room for recreational activities as an accessory to the primary residence is met by the proposed construction of the Carriage House while maintaining the original character of the building. 3. The requested variances are substantial but are proportional to the scale of the property and the existing site structures. 4. The requested variances will not have adverse effect or impact of the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood as stormwater run-off and increased building coverage shall be routed into the existing stormwater conveyance system. 5. The requested variances are self-created in effort to improve the accessory buildings and functionality of the site for its new homeowners. Margaret Rubick asked Sean McCarthy if a building is existing non-conforming and it is torn down, is it permitted to be rebuilt. Sean McCarthy stated that if an existing non-conforming structure is torn down, it is permitted to be rebuilt. 10 (ZBA 2/16/2022) �Gorete Crowe asked Sean McCarthy why a Stop Work Order was issued for tearing down the building. Sean McCarthy stated that a Building Permit was not issued to tear down the building. A Building Permit was issued to lift the building. Ms. Martelli stated that although revised construction drawings were filed to specify new construction, the Building Permit was issued specifically to reference the municipal board approvals for the lifting of the structure. It was not her intention to not file for Building Permit that specified the demolition and reconstruction of the structure or to deviate from the approvals. Gorete Crowe asked when it was discovered that a permit was not issued. Sean McCarthy stated that a Building Permit was issued in accordance with the variance and Site Plan approval to lift and add to the building and it was discovered when they were informed that the building was demolished. Ms. Martelli stated that the Stop Work Order brought it to their attention that they needed to file revised Building Permits to demolish the structure. Motion was made to open the public hearing for the requested variances. Moved: Church Seconded: Rubick Vote 5-0 Chairman Lis solicited comments from the public. There were no public comments. Motion was made to close the public hearing for the requested variances. Moved: Church Seconded: Crowe Vote 5-0 Motion was made by Chairman Lis to approve the requested variances based on the following criteria: 1. Granting of the variances will not cause an undesirable change to the character to the character of the neighborhood or be a detriment to the nearby properties as the application proposes to build a structure similar to the existing structure that was previously approved for additions and alterations. 2. Granting of the area variances is the feasible and minimal method to achieve the benefits sought by the applicants because the previous approvals for lifting the structure were deemed not safe for construction teams. 3. The requested variances are not substantial due to the size of the lot. 11 (ZBA 2/16/2022) �4. The requested variances will not produce an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood as the stormwater run-off can be handled by the existing systems. 5. The requested variances is self-created but it is not the only factor that the Board considers when granting area variances. A motion was made to grant the area variances. Moved: Lis Seconded: Rubick Craig Lis, Acting Chairman- yes Sandra Tripp - yes Thomas Chang -yes Margaret Rubick - yes Gorete Crowe- yes Vote 5-0 APPROVED 6. Approval of minutes- December 15, 2021, January 19, 2022 Motion was made to approve the December 15, 2021 minutes. Moved: Lis Seconded: Rubick Vote 5-0 Motion was made to approve the January 19, 2022 minutes. Moved: Lis Seconded: Rubick Vote 5-0 Motion was made to adjourn the meeting at 8:33 pm. Moved: Church Seconded: Rubick Vote 5-0 Respectfully Submitted, Pamela Kroll Secretary to the Zoning Board of Appeals 12 (ZBA 2/16/2022) �ARTHUR C. McKINLEY 1 8 KINGSLAND ROAD SLEEPY HOLLOW, NY 1 0591 KINLEY@GMAIL.COM (646) 483-5250 February 14, 2022 Chairman Timothy Church C/O Village of Sleepy Hollow Dept of Architecture, Land Use Dev, Buildings and Building Compliance 28 Beekman Ave Sleepy Hollow, NY I 0591 smccarthy@villageofsleepyhollow.org Exhibit #1 RECEIVED FEB 1 5 2022 BUILDING DEPT, OLLOW VILLAGE Of SLEEPY H RE: Feb 16 Zoning Board of Appeals Hearing Fencing Variance comments for Richard and Elizabeth Pacheco 9 Hemlock Drive Fencing Variance to Article VII 450-40. F Dear Chairman Church and Zoning Board of Appeals Members: I understand there will be another hearing on the Pacheco Fence Variance. I wrote to you before the last meeting (letter attached) and am writing again to underscore several points. Myself and a number of neighbors are opposed to granting this variance. I. We are against variances except in extreme cases ... as they create precedents that severely weaken our village zoning. 2. We are opposed to this zoning variance as it could open the floodgates to a variety of long and high fences that are positioned too near to the roadways and property lines with regard to existing norms and desires of neighborhood. 3. We are opposed because this project fails to meet the 5 POINT TEST for granting zoning variances. a. It creates an UNDESIRABLE CHANGE for the neighborhood (and sets a dangerous precedent). b. The stated reason for a fence (to fence a dog) can be ACHIEVED BY OTHER METHODS c. The requested area variance is NOT ESSENTIAL. d. The proposed variance will have an ADVERSE EFFECT AND IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND PHYSICAL NEIGHBORHOOD. e. Any difficulties caused by this process are entirely SELF CREATED BY THE APPLICANT in seeking such a long and high fence that is too close to the street on a corner lot. None of the neighbor's concerns have been addressed in the resubmission of this fence variance application. No survey has been performed. The various maps and drawings are vague and confusing. The various exhibits seem to contradict themselves and still seem to show the fence continuing to the roadway. There are no exact measurements of the setback. The ground has not been staked or markedjin any way. The construction of the fence will necessitate eliminating a number of existing trees and shrubs. This impacts both Kingsland Road frontage and the neighboring property that will bear the burden of providing plant screening between the properties. Finally there are no reasons given as to the need for such tall and expansive fencing is needed or why a fence, if built, cannot be positioned as per existing zoning regulations and conforming to neighborhood norms. Sincerely, Arthur McKinley cc: Sean McCarthy - Village of Sleepy Hollow - Building Department Pamela Kroll - Secretary, Planning Board of Appeals Maria Goete Crowe - Planning Board of Appeals Margaret Rubick - Planning Board of Appeals Craig Lis - Planning Board of Appeals Sandra Tripp - Planning Board of Appeals Thomas Chang - Planning Board of Appeals Sleepy Hollow Manor Association Board John Dennison, Esq. Attorney at Law �Exhibit #2 FEB 1 4 2022 14 February 2022 w To the Zoning Board of Sleepy Hollow, We live at 126 Harwood Ave, immediately next door to 138 Harwood Avenue, a property for which an application has been made to this Board to construct an addition. T he proposed addition will border immediately on our western property line. We have reviewed the drawings for the addition on the Board's website, and have no objection to its going forward. We have another engagement on the 16th of February, the evening of the Zoning Board meeting, but wish to express our support for the project. We have supported a previous addition by another owner on the same portion of the property, and see no harm in its extension. Sincerely, � I. \� �t(� David and Lois Hinman 126 Harwood Ave Sleepy Hollow NY 10591 914-631-7120 david.hinman@gmail.com lois.hinman@gmail.com �Exhibit #3 February 13, 2022 My name is I live at RECEIVED .:fw1_!j Cw /(}__1 NJ )<!,Afi u£ {}. 511:2:.r?';j Jf II� FEB J 6 20?2 BUILDING Ot:1' 1 • HOLLOW ¥ILi.AGE OF SLEEPY I reviewed the plans by Alan and Lauren Perlman at 16 Pokahoe and I have no objection to their project. Sign� --> �>:;__ �Exhibit #4 February 13, 2022 RECEIVED My name is I live at I� 1-Jl,slu...- CV1.d l'Yki !&ct.av vno.n FEB Peik..a.nee tW'we. , .).� ttili..,""U) t9e-v'dA o..d.d.J-u..,.:vi Mel to Qµ.ri, Df2-� tu<' wuJ w/\Cl \QCLS,S.ll.Vs.� lVI 6 2022 BUILDING DEPT. VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW' " I reviewed the plans by Alan and Lauren Perlman at 16 Pokahoe and I have no objection to their project. � �o.so.d l cd l lo � W-Lj� ill �.s. � �Exhibit #5 February 13, 2022 My name is J)M I live at f g 72-u fj(FY2.TON e Fb�H08' .c::f21 -f- 77<-IC,{.4 Y:::ENf\/ EY ve- I reviewed the plans by Alan and Lauren Perlman at 16 Pokahoe and I have no objection to their project. ' RECEIVED FEB 1 6 2022 BUILDING DEPT. VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLL01 �Exhibit #6 February 13, 2022 RECEIVED t/> Lt, ¼fti_ W/h,� /f &trelt?C.. � FEB l 6 2022 My name is I live at I BUILDING DEPT. VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW I reviewed the plans by Alan and Lauren Perlman at 16 Pokahoe and I have no objection to their project. Signed ( SZJQ/ffi <k,-" j � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2022 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_ZONING_2022-02-16_Approved ZBA Minutes Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2022 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2022 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Village of Sleepy Hollow All Rights Reserved. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text